Will a Marriage Fight Break Out in GOP WH 2016?

With today's big news -- and it certainly is big news -- that Senator Rob Portman has flipped to supporting marriage equality, the obvious question is where that leaves the Republican Party. Portman joins Dick Cheney and a handful of other prominent Republicans, and Portman was thought to have at least some potential as a presidential candidate in 2016. 

Just last week, I wrote a piece on the policy debates Republicans should be having among themselves, and I didn't talk about marriage at all; in the original draft, I said something about a debate on marriage still being too unlikely to expect. 

I might have been wrong, but I'm still guessing that Portman will remain the exception, and that opponents of marriage will still maintain a solid veto over the presidential nomination in the 2016 cycle. 

To some extent, that's because public opinion within the GOP, and presumably especially among the presidential primary electorate, still runs overwhelmingly against marriage equality. It's possible that could change, especially if GOP elite opinion continues to change, but right now it's hard to see a same-sex marriage supporter benefiting even in a large field in which staking out a minority position could have some advantages. 

But the real reason I don't see it happening in 2016 is group-based. Right now, large, well-organized GOP-aligned groups strongly oppose any change in the Republican position; there's simply nothing comparable on the other side of the issue. Nor is there really likely to be anything similar. 

Truth is, I'm not sure a policy debate on this is really in the GOP's interest. There's really not much to debate; it's pretty clear where the issue is going, and hard to see how a knock-down-drag-out within the party helps them (in contrast to issues such as national security in which they really need a well-thought-out position, and a nomination fight is probably a good way to get there). Nor is there any real need for Republicans to flip on the issue; it's not going to be a major voting issue, after all. No, I'd think that the best strategy for the GOP on this one is to figure out how to walk away quietly. Yes, that will involve more politicians doing what Portman did -- but it will also involve others just not talking about it, and accepting defeat when defeat comes, and then treating it as a dead issue after that. 

If that's correct, then the best bet is to continue to give Christian conservatives a veto on the issue in 2016, at least -- but to otherwise keep the issue on the back burner.

Veepstakes: Governing Side

There are at least three ways to think about Veepstakes.

One is in terms of immediate electoral effect. I've written quite a bit about that...the short version is to avoid disaster by picking someone as vetted as possible, and then look for the upside of a couple points or so in the running mate's home state.

The second is in terms of defining the party. In part this is because the Veepstakes winner is apt to become more important within the party, perhaps even president. Or we can look at it the other way around: Veepstakes isn't just a free choice of the nominee, but one that is affected by preferences of party actors. That's what we're seeing happening this week: party actors are mobilized by the selection, and make clear to the nominee their preferences and especially their veto points. And, in turn, nominees -- who are in an excellent position to understand the strength within the party of various people and groups, having just navigated all of that to get nominated in the first place -- have to judge what is a serious problem for party actors who really matter, as opposed to mere posturing or, perhaps, strong feelings of those who can be ignored.

Then there's a third way. We can think about who is best equipped to do the actual job of a vice president.

The problem with that one is that presidents are not only free to match the VP's tasks to their particular talents and skills, but they also are perfectly free to enlarge or shrink the VP's responsibilities. And from the point of view of the president it's not entirely clear that the president is better off with a Gore or Mondale rather than a Quayle. Let alone a Cheney. There's a problem with the vice president, which is that they more or less can't be fired.

Anyway, if you do want someone to help with governing, I'd argue it's better to go with someone good on process than someone with substantive expertise. And the two Veepstakes rumored candidates who seem to have the right experience for that are Rob Portman and Bobby Jindal. Portman has served in both chambers of Congress and in two presidential branch agencies as US Trade Rep and OMB director; the latter is certainly a good perch for knowing a lot about executive branch politics. Jindal also was in the House, and his experience in state government seems useful; he was also at HHS, so he knows a bit about executive branch agencies, too. Since Mitt Romney is a former governor, that would seem to suggest that Portman's experience is a better fit. In particular, note that each the last three presidents have had a Chief of Staff who had previously been OMB director (Lew, Bolten, Panetta). On the other hand, Portman was only at OMB for thirteen months, and I should note that I'm only talking here about what positions they've held; I have no particular knowledge about how well they did there.

I have no idea what Romney will do, but it sure seems to me that of the people who are getting lots of mentions, Portman is a very logical choice.